[tdwg-content] canonicalScientificName

[Mergen Patricia]

According to our experience in this matter with content providers, I fully
support Donald's point of view and worries on this point.

with my best wishes

Patricia

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Donald Hobern <dhobern at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Peter.
>
> I certainly sympathise with the desire for a readily-consumed naked
> scientific name field.  However, unless the canonicalScientificName element
> is enforced as a mandatory field (which would in itself impact some data
> publishers and may prevent them validly sharing their data without extra
> work to provide clean scientific names), it will be yet another element
> which data consumers must check.  If canonicalScientificName is supplied,
> consumers will still need to handle cases where it is malformed.  If is not
> supplied, they will need to ignore the record or else do precisely what
> they do today with the scientificName field.
>
> I therefore worry that adding this field could in fact make the task more
> complex, rather than simpler, for data consumers.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Donald
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Donald Hobern - GBIF Director - dhobern at gbif.org
>
> Global Biodiversity Information Facility http://www.gbif.org/
>
> GBIF Secretariat, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
>
> Tel: +45 3532 1471  Mob: +45 2875 1471  Fax: +45 2875 1480
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20120314/1a07243f/attachment.html